From: Zoran M. <zor...@er...> - 2015-09-15 07:29:09
|
Hi Neelakanta, As I answered to Hung, merging two linked list from different sources into one list to be able to free memory, make the code more confusing. To merge two lists, we still need to iterate to the end of one linked list. I don't see any benefit of merging 2 linked lists. Best regards, Zoran -----Original Message----- From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:red...@or...] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 8:47 AM To: Zoran Milinkovic Cc: ope...@li... Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: fix memory leak in display resources [#1477] Hi zoran, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack with the comment. comment: destroy rparams in generic way as in immnd_evt_destroy (suggested by Hung). /Neel. On Saturday 12 September 2015 04:12 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: > Summary: imm: fix memory leak in display resources [#1477] Review > request for Trac Ticket(s): 1477 Peer Reviewer(s): Neelakanta, Hung > Pull request to: Zoran Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.5.x, > opensaf-4.6.x, default(4.7) Development branch: default(4.7) > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services y > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 4581d497fbff57d03c32108444a47c6aa3c1d232 > Author: Zoran Milinkovic <zor...@er...> > Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:37:21 +0200 > > imm: fix memory leak in display resources [#1477] > > The patch releases allocated memory for the result of admin op for display > resources > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > Check that IMMND does not have memory leak after admin ops for display > resources > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Neelakanta and Hung > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 n n > powerpc n n > powerpc64 n n > > > Reviewer Checklist: > ------------------- > [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any > checkmarks!] > > > Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): > > ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries > that need proper data filled in. > > ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. > > ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header > > ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. > > ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. > > ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. > > ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files > (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) > > ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. > Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. > > ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. > > ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes > like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. > > ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other > cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. > > ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is > too much content into a single commit. > > ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) > > ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; > Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. > > ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded > commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. > > ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication > of what has changed between each re-send. > > ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the > comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. > > ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) > > ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the > the threaded patch review. > > ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results > for in-service upgradability test. > > ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series > do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. > |